Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 12:07:28 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Somehow spirit of Ben Turner (Ben Hur?) have gotten into Curtis Lemay
If you think that everything is covered OK but still think that it's better to add substantial essentials than wooden palisades.
Production suggestions are good start however there shoudn't be so much micromanaging - example:
6.13 Interdiction.
6.13.1 Mineral resources, raw materials, finished equipment items, trained equipment items, etc. must all be transported from source to next required destination. Upon doing so they become subject to enemy interdiction. That includes bombing of transportation hubs and submarine warfare (assuming submarine warfare is simulated).
Is this Operational Art of Speer or War?
Production ideas are OK for discussion but above thing is so hard to do properly and will go to SF pretty soon.
Player could have disrupted flow of manpower if system is abused or scenario allows that. In reality - never actually happened to a serious degree.
Mario


Mario;

Nah, this is the unlikely to be completed NEW GAME: "The Strategic Art of Operational Tactics", so don't sweat the small stuff, Big Guy!!! Expected publication date is Dec 21 2012, and you know what that means, LOL!

Just add into it, rather than blasting it, eh? We've all got something 'strangely disturbing' that we would like to see, so don't get too involved in other people's wet-dreams, eh?

Have fun! Not like you'll be asked to buy a copy, LOL!



I have TOAW 3 hehe not installed but I have it so I can comment as much as I want my style suggestions because it's a free world and I am not sycophant to use only "great" words like someone as Veers who have come actually on all these boards after me and now he is giving me a lectures how I must behave. I will behave my way. He doesn't need to respond to me if he wants to teach me manners of sycophancy.

As Bob Cross have posted this wish list - I can comment it. Perfectly legal word is word stupid and I will always use it if I really see something stupid. He needs feedback or words "great" "my mouth is full of water" etc???

I just read the wish list and not with great attention, imagine what kind of stupidities I would find if I have really readed with attention.

L'zard I am not blasting it per se!!!! I have said that some ideas there are great, some are VERY DEBATABLE etc....?

SOme MUST BE EXPLAINED WHY THEY WANT THIS OR THAT. Like penalty from attacking enemy across major river they want increase from 30% to 50% - they need to explain thing like this not just suggest it. I am not sweating because I have a hintch that this will implemented NEVER. So it is again stupid to argue about the things that will be never put in the game.
I have just seen that if stupidities from other people are there then put mine also like Commanders. That will bring at least better AAR's and better connection with the game. Part of Hearts of Iron charm was their AAR's and WHY THE HELL THEY HAD COOL AAR'S ?
Because they could make a story out of COMMANDERS IN THE GAME!!
And that is not included in the wish list and elephants and 3000 other stupidities is.
So it's simply vanity of involved they think that they are really smart. Blah.


Mario



(in reply to L`zard)
Post #: 31
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 2:37:41 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2026
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain]
quote:


Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.


Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.




Mario, if you had popped up at the tdg - there was a long discussion over several threads and weeks, where you could have added something to the wish list. I did (although just a little point). You can't speak of a "comitee" wishlist... also, someone had to put it together, had to initiate it etc..
Be it as it is - you still can add (but not subtract ;) ) something to the list. Calm down.


< Message edited by Telumar -- 8/15/2007 2:38:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 32
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 4:43:17 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline



[/quote]

Mario, if you had popped up at the tdg - there was a long discussion over several threads and weeks, where you could have added something to the wish list. I did (although just a little point). You can't speak of a "comitee" wishlist... also, someone had to put it together, had to initiate it etc..
Be it as it is - you still can add (but not subtract ;) ) something to the list. Calm down.

[/quote]


Telumar,

I don't have time to post on so many forums, I have visited fe times TDG forums but never posted.
I don't knock their effort BUT in fact knock their "sanity" and "intelligence" because if COMMANDERS is good idea then let's document it. Let's agree what factors should be influenced by COMMANDERS - that is work that should have been discussed and commented. I can propose but it must be debated. So - should commanders influence all things or just some, in any way work on engine is needed. For example commanders could influence SUPPLY, READINESS, PROFICENCY; DEFENSE VALUE, ATTACK VALLUE, ANTI ARMOUR VALUE, ANTI PERSONAL VALUE, ANTI AIR VALUE, ETC... so many factors! But that would bring enormous change to the game and novelty.

I am not knocking ANCIEN warfare just like that - I think that it is just fanboy view that TOAW should cover everything from nuclear ages down to Indians who shoot poisoned arrows to red assed monkeys
I am sorry but when I say stupid I meant it. There is no way that someone should sugar coat his words when if TOAW needs changes then changes must be put inteligently not on ANCIENT warfare. I would rather make another game on Ancient Warfare then tried to model TOAW into Ancient Warfare.
It is just useless IMHO. You must make another module for Ancient warfare, and complete rewrite of an engine.

I will not however post on TDG as I don't have time for that. In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.

Just as I said - I am not knocking their work but they must have some priorities and some responsibility. If indians who shoot poisoned arrows into red assed monkeys lol are lousy idea then drop it and think of those that are better in priority.

ARMOUR for instance in Barbarossa scenarios are almost uselless - then make those dynamicy ZOC's or work on something like Ben Turner who made armored unit's with bigger recce value so that they can easily pass through enemy ZOC's. German armous are especially lousy in FiTE - and Russian is overpowered in defense. Blah. Contrary to the history. Now you must encircle Russian armour if you want to destroy it or not just shoot few T-26.

I will however not lose too much energy to persuade anyone be it Jarek, Ben, Obi Wan Kenobi, Veers, you or Curtis Lemay what is good to go and what is not. If you want elephants go ahead put then elephants.


Mario

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 33
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 5:27:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.


As I said in the first post, we tried to be comprehensive but that's unattainable. If there are things we've missed let us know. But try to find them in the document first - most of what you complained about it lacking so far were actually in there (Commanders, for example).

And you have a right to your opinion as to the value of any items. But it's just one opinion. Other people may feel differently (me in particular). Again, we're trying to be comprehensive.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/15/2007 5:31:41 PM >

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 34
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 5:48:47 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2026
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.



I don't think so, too. It's just that it was on tdg where it started.

And now... and no more

Go ahead and add your proposals here.

Stefan

_____________________________


(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 35
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 5:56:23 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4948
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
Mario,
This is strictly a wish-list. Since it's a wish list, of course some features won't be imlemented. This will happen because of the time required, the lack of definition, because they don't fit with my 'vision' of what TOAW should be, or for other reasons. I'm very glad that someone took the time to gather it in one place.

I know the games I like to play, and it's games that avoid micromanagement, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I know the difference between games that require you to manage youre units and make interesting decisions, and games that require you to micromanage and make meaningless choices. TOAW does a fairly good job of requiring management, but the UI still needs some tweaking to elimiante more of the micromanagement, clicking on 30 units and setting them to 'ignore losses' isn't my idea of fun. We need to eitehr explain what the differences are between the different stances, and why you would want to use each one, autmate the default setting of them, or make it easier.

All features added need to be optional or non-breaking. The recently added new flanking rules are something that's optional because while I believe it makes things better, it may also change the balance of some scenarios.

If you want something to be seriously considered, remeber that I'm lazy<g>. If there's a specific proposal to add like 'Leaders' as optional equipment that can have a range that would be sown up on range rings in this color, and would affect all units that are either pass a communications check, or... You get the idea. The more details, and the more simple the idea is, the more likely it is that it will be implemented.

Items that are simple to understand and code and either simplify playing the game or make it more immersive or make it better able to model more conflicts are more likely to be implemented.

The beta team that I rely on for help probably has over 50 years of experience with TOAW, so it's not just my arbitrary decisions. They've got a good idea (usually several conflicting ones of what things will and won't work.

You seem be be a bit hung up on Elephants, Actually, even though White Rabbit is hung up on them, they aren't just for ancient warfare. The idea of allowing Elmer to control individual formations would also be useful for controlling sides in a game. For example it might be possible to play a game like Europe Aflame, allowing Elmer to control Switzerland's navy<g>. That would allow the designer to add in more 'flavor' while not requiring extra work for the player when there are no 'interesting decisions' to be made by those units. If I add computer controlled formations, it opens up some decent ideas like the small scale scenarios havinh units reatreating like in Steel Panthers. 'Elephants' are a pretty minor step from that, and can also be used to control things like friendly guerillas.

If Elephants hadn't been on the wish-list, I wouldn't have thought of them, but they may be easy to implement, and open up some new possibilities.

Ralph



_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 36
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 7:05:25 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
Eh, OK

Mostly I agree... I will reply longer later...


Mario

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 37
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 7:08:52 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
quote:


Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.


Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.

quote:

And stop acting like a police guard here.

With people like you around, someone has to.

quote:

I am allowed to call elephants in TOAW just that - stupid.

Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.

quote:


This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century and you are now acting like biggest fanboy and sicophant which is simple not needed.

Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)

quote:

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.

quote:

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.



EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....

< Message edited by Veers -- 8/15/2007 7:14:07 PM >


_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 38
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 9:04:28 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/15/2007 9:07:23 PM >

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 39
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 9:45:01 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.

Sweetness.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 40
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:25:45 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.


As I said in the first post, we tried to be comprehensive but that's unattainable. If there are things we've missed let us know. But try to find them in the document first - most of what you complained about it lacking so far were actually in there (Commanders, for example).

And you have a right to your opinion as to the value of any items. But it's just one opinion. Other people may feel differently (me in particular). Again, we're trying to be comprehensive.


OK I agree Bob. Thank you.

I will try to make contribution. Peacefully

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 41
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:27:01 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL:
This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century . . .


Since the TOAW engine is optimized for operational XX century warfare, there have always been problems whenever it is asked to perform XIX century, small unit and army level calculations. Wonder if it would be possible to modify the engine so that certain variables, or switches, could be selected by the author depending on the scale and time frame of the scenario? The purpose would be to adjust the engine to the scenario.

This could be included as part of the environment screen. Might actually be more trouble than it is worth, but Ralph would know whether this is practical.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 42
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:27:51 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.



I don't think so, too. It's just that it was on tdg where it started.

And now... and no more

Go ahead and add your proposals here.

Stefan


OK yes you are right....

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 43
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:33:30 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4948
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option?

That's for the next version with the 3D models...

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 44
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:36:45 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
All right Ralph mostly I agree....

Idea behind commanders is this:

As we already have one of most proposed features for future iterations of TOAW is attaching and deattaching of units to different HQ's. As we know any Army did shuffle of units to various HQ's. For example Grossdeutschland division was pulled out from Army Group South after preliminary Operation Blau move. It was attached to AG Central just in time to prevent catastrophe near Rzhev when Red Army was putting big pressure.

So, Commanders would not influence just units in their radius at least that was not mine idea. They would influence unit's directly subordinated to them.

This idea of course needs to be discussed and refined. For exammple if there is good General commanding Army Group does bonues and penalties would be carried over to lower echellons unit's like Corps HQ units and Division HQ units or bonuses would be calculated separately so Div HQ commander gives bonuses only to that division - anyway maybe middle HQ's unit commanders should give bonuses to their units and THOSE unit's Division that are in that Corps HQ.

All values to Commanders could have been assigned in Editor. This is because many would argue is Rommell Supply plus 4% or 2%, is he bonus of 5% to whole attack value or just 5% to armored attack value.

And so on...

Back to other replies as FiTE is waiting for me eheh.


Mario


(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 45
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:39:40 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.



Can't argue this. If it can be made. Then we will see a lot others scenarios like battle of Canae and such

But only Ralph know is this possible with current engine combat model.


M.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 46
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:51:55 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.

One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! ) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 47
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:54:08 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.


There is no vendetta. Maybe that's why you act like ... I understand that they are listening so we will see how much hehe...
Maybe you need to get of your high horse - my words are just my style but they are just words. It is not something that should be charged like a mad bull.


quote:


With people like you around, someone has to.


Ahahahahahaha. Buarghagagagaagahahaga...
FiTE is waiting but this is fun also
Again, just said that I use words ahem let's say in poetic freedom way. Nothing to get too excited about.
When I said stupid that's just a word - that was appropriate word in my English dictionary so I just used it.

quote:


Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.


Ahahaha. Again. Sorry couldn't resist. LOL
I never was against idea that is whole point. Sorry if you cannot stand a little bit over the top words but nobody's perfect

quote:


Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)


No never said that. But actually I am coming from Usenet and I have used to brutal words fight hahaha. That's what you need to realize. There is no arrogancy in that. But I am creative in that haha. I never condemn you for your love for TOAW 3 etc... just you don't have to say to everything that is great. Bropaden the subject and be more critical, for the good of TOAW that's all.

quote:

quote:

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.


C'mon. Where is good will? You are just digging up some old discussion and remember I had perfectly legal right for my opinion. That is not reason to spill bad blood over and over again just because of few words...
quote:



quote:

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.


Garh! Hahaha. I am not. Period.


quote:


EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....


Heh. I noticed too and as a good boy answered to all.

OK. Peace.


Mario

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 48
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 10:59:41 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain


quote:

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.


There is no vendetta. Maybe that's why you act like ... I understand that they are listening so we will see how much hehe...
Maybe you need to get of your high horse - my words are just my style but they are just words. It is not something that should be charged like a mad bull.


quote:


With people like you around, someone has to.


Ahahahahahaha. Buarghagagagaagahahaga...
FiTE is waiting but this is fun also
Again, just said that I use words ahem let's say in poetic freedom way. Nothing to get too excited about.
When I said stupid that's just a word - that was appropriate word in my English dictionary so I just used it.

quote:


Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.


Ahahaha. Again. Sorry couldn't resist. LOL
I never was against idea that is whole point. Sorry if you cannot stand a little bit over the top words but nobody's perfect

quote:


Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)


No never said that. But actually I am coming from Usenet and I have used to brutal words fight hahaha. That's what you need to realize. There is no arrogancy in that. But I am creative in that haha. I never condemn you for your love for TOAW 3 etc... just you don't have to say to everything that is great. Bropaden the subject and be more critical, for the good of TOAW that's all.

quote:

quote:

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.


C'mon. Where is good will? You are just digging up some old discussion and remember I had perfectly legal right for my opinion. That is not reason to spill bad blood over and over again just because of few words...
quote:



quote:

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.


Garh! Hahaha. I am not. Period.


quote:


EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....


Heh. I noticed too and as a good boy answered to all.

OK. Peace.


Mario

Eh, I'll give you the last word. Peace.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 49
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 11:11:29 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.

One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! ) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?


?? Leaders are definitely in the document. See 4.12.1.

The details of how they would be implemented were intentionally left vague.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/15/2007 11:15:28 PM >

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 50
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 11:16:51 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.

One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! ) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?


?? Leaders are definitely in the document. See 4.12.1.

The details of how they would be implemented were intentionally left vague.


Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 51
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 11:22:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL:
This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century . . .


Since the TOAW engine is optimized for operational XX century warfare, there have always been problems whenever it is asked to perform XIX century, small unit and army level calculations. Wonder if it would be possible to modify the engine so that certain variables, or switches, could be selected by the author depending on the scale and time frame of the scenario? The purpose would be to adjust the engine to the scenario.

This could be included as part of the environment screen. Might actually be more trouble than it is worth, but Ralph would know whether this is practical.

Regards, RhinoBones


Well, that's what 4.12 and 7.20 are addressing. Of course these items would be optional.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 52
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 11:29:10 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.


Don't worry about how things are labeled. As Rhinobones says, you could pick and choose. For example, one might want to employ Linear Tactics to some extent as late as WWI. And there are other items in the list that are really needed for pre-20th Century but aren't specifically labeled as such (7.3 & 7.9, for example).

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 53
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/15/2007 11:40:08 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.


Don't worry about how things are labeled. As Rhinobones says, you could pick and choose. For example, one might want to employ Linear Tactics to some extent as late as WWI. And there are other items in the list that are really needed for pre-20th Century but aren't specifically labeled as such (7.3 & 7.9, for example).

Right'o.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 54
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 2:05:56 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Some good suggestions some plain stupid...




Stupid are: elephants and such things (why you need ancient warfare here at all? LOL

Mount and Dismount - pure stupidity, TOAW is OPERATIONAL game - it is not tactical game a la STEEL PANTHERS!!!




..decent elephants require direct Elmer-intervention in player games usable for limiting player control over dodgy formations..i like elephants

..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..

..but i'm sure you worked all that out before posting..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 55
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 3:47:19 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline



[/quote]

..decent elephants require direct Elmer-intervention in player games usable for limiting player control over dodgy formations..i like elephants

..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..

..but i'm sure you worked all that out before posting..

[/quote]

Oh here it is hippy from San Francisco, let's roll one before proceding

Just joking of course, not to be taken seriously.

For Christ sake first TOAW is already micromanaging hell (try FiTE) and first we must see will this actually benefit to the game or not. Everything that can be put AS A OPTION PER SE - is not that bad. Everything in fact that has on off switch even better.

What benefits to the real monster scenarios that ARE MOST POPULAR MIND YOU! is taking few trucks from Minsk to Smolensk to bring some supply to the 113 company of 15th PnGr div or something like that.
There is no end to that then. Then you must include AMBUSH MODE of drunken band of gypsies that attacked this convoy out of the woods.

Something that you propose would be usuable for some tactical situations that's why I have said STEEL PANTHERS. How many players in fact play 1km scale scenarios in TOAW?

I was talking about priorities and TOAW is OPERATIONAL game. My problem is not that you didn't cleaned your ears before posting to me some ironic posts.

How do you want to TOAW actually develops? With one programmer and this snail pace sure you will have everything in what time 10 years? 20?

I would rather that some priorities are made - PRODUCTION a la Secon Front for example with factories in cities, already there is many good ideas about that. I doubt that even THAT is not easy to be made.

So stop attacking me...I repeat make some priorities on this wish list.

Of course if you want elephant on 1st place I will not stop you. But laughing is not forbidden.

Bleeeeee...



Mario



(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 56
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 4:01:58 PM   
Boonierat


Posts: 539
Joined: 11/11/2003
From: The Boonies
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
I was talking about priorities and TOAW is OPERATIONAL game. My problem is not that you didn't cleaned your ears before posting to me some ironic posts.
....
I would rather that some priorities are made - PRODUCTION a la Secon Front for example with factories in cities, already there is many good ideas about that. I doubt that even THAT is not easy to be made.


You contradict yourself here, you say TOAW is operational then ask for a production system, something found in strategic games


_____________________________


(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 57
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 4:10:59 PM   
Monkeys Brain


Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline
[/quote]

You contradict yourself here, you say TOAW is operational then ask for a production system, something found in strategic games

[/quote]

Yeah, Boonierat you are right.
But my favorite scenario are monster scenarios

1) FiTE
2) The Great War 2.0
etc...

Unlike many others that voiced their opinion against PRODUCTION system I am with all my powers for it.

Take for example FiTE or The Great War 2.0

You are right - TOAW is OPERATIONAL game but basically FiTE 5.0 and The Great War 2.0 are not just operational as YOU are in fact HEAD HONCHO of ALL FRONT! You are Hitler or Kaise. You can grew even moustaches like Hitler so when you wake up in the morning to say Sieg Heil! when you look into mirrow before brushing your tooths. LOL

So these scenarios are also STRATEGIC not just operational. Maybe you don't agree but all your decisions have strategic consequences in the battlefield and it really doesn't matter that your units are regiments or divisions and not corps.

In FiTE you could take decisions and coupled that with research you can speed up production of some tanks or planes, or you could decide to make bigger amount of manpower etc... maybe try to introduce PzIIIJ at earlier date and with bigger numbers? Or Tigers? etc... of course Russians would not be weak as well they will have their options and anyway they made so much tanks in 1942. and that's why they survived.

The Great War as well - you decide would Krupp make bigger guns or more lesser caliber guns? Would Germans try to make tanks before? or armored cars? or more ships or subs?


Mario







< Message edited by Monkeys Brain -- 8/16/2007 4:12:39 PM >

(in reply to Boonierat)
Post #: 58
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 4:27:46 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..


There is indeed that aspect. Think of the 101st Airborne in the Bulge. It's foot-bound, but was swiftly tranported to Bastogne by pool trucks. Then the trucks left it there. That sort of "truck-lift" is hard to model in TOAW. Mount/Dismount is one of the ways suggested.

But the main benefit is when you have a heavily motorized assault facing a mostly foot defense - and that defense sets itself up in terrain that motorized units can't enter, like badlands or dunes. A prime example of this is the Desert War: Italians on foot defending against the British on wheels. The British need to be able to "dismount". That's going to be the case in any Desert War scenario at almost any scale. Anyone who thinks the Desert War scenarios aren't popular is living a sheltered life.

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 59
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/16/2007 4:31:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7079
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
So these scenarios are also STRATEGIC not just operational. ...


I think Boonierat was being facetious, but I'll jump in here and agree with Mario. A scenario can be operational in scale while being strategic in scope.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.135